G.R. No. 137250-51 - Margarejo vs. Escoses

On May 12, 1998, at approximately 4:00 a.m., police officers in Puerto Princesa City—led by Police Superintendent Feliciano C. Dimayuga, Sr.—were manning a COMELEC checkpoint at Barangay Sta. Lourdes.
Two vehicles were intercepted:

A Tamaraw FX with plate number SDT-389 driven by petitioner Martin Pagaduan.
A Toyota Hi-Lux vehicle without a plate driven by retired Colonel Romualdo Ragel.

During the checkpoint operation, several firearms and live ammunition were observed and later found in plain view.

In the Toyota Hi-Lux, several firearms—including an Uzi machine pistol, various pistols, a revolver, and an M16 Baby Armalite Rifle—were observed with corresponding live ammunition and magazines.
Firearms carried by petitioners and other passengers were similarly spotted, and, when questioned about possessing the required licenses and permits, the petitioners failed to produce any documentation.
The police confiscated the firearms and issued receipts for the seizure.

Petitioners, along with three others, were charged in two separate informations:

Criminal Case No. 14353 for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (illegal possession of firearms).

The information enumerated specific firearms and ammunition allegedly possessed by the accused, detailing serial numbers, magazines, and quantities.

Criminal Case No. 14354 for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 3045 regarding possession of firearms during the election period, thereby implicating section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code.

This charge similarly listed the firearms and ammunition involved along with the absence of the required COMELEC permit.

Prior to arraignment, motions to quash the informations were filed by petitioners in both cases.

In Criminal Case No. 14353, petitioners argued that the facts complained of did not conform to the elements of the offense, particularly contending that the absence of the commission of another crime invalidated the information.
In Criminal Case No. 14354, petitioners contended that the City Prosecutor lacked authority to file the information since COMELEC, having exclusive jurisdiction over election offenses, had its own preliminary investigation underway.

The Court, in its order dated September 30, 1998, denied these motions to quash, thereby directing that the accused be arraigned at the earliest available calendar.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was similarly denied in a resolution dated November 20, 1998.

The petitioners raised three primary issues in their Memorandum, specifically challenging the essential elements of the offense, the authority of the City Prosecutor, and the legality of the warrantless search leading to the seizure of evidence.

Whether the non-commission of another crime is an essential element for violation of PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294, such that its allegation must be present in the information.
Whether the pending preliminary investigation by COMELEC into the same act deprived the City Prosecutor of the authority to file the information under the delegation granted by COMELEC.
Whether the warrantless search that led to the discovery and seizure of the firearms was conducted legally.